Quote Originally Posted by Musho View Post
Dude, my laptop with a 5470 with a measly 80 shaders can run Crysis and Crysis warhead just fine. The engine scales down amazingly well.

What would you rather have?

A. Game that looks really good at medium settings and runs at current hardware, but looks better than anything presented so far at max settings, but needs next-gen hardware.

B. Game that looks really good at max settings and runs at current hardware, but there's no way to increase the graphics further.

Crysis 1 went with A, and I'm glad it went with that choice. It made sure new and faster hardware than available was needed. That's what's pushing PC-gaming graphics!
Crysis 1 was stupid because it went with A. It wasn't that good of a game unless it was cranked all the way up, and once you beat it there wasn't much of a point going back since you already knew what to do and had seen it all.

If you had an SLI 8800 configuration when it hit, Crysis 1 was a good game, if you didn't it was a bad game, this is entirely because it relied on visuals. So it was only worth a purchase for a minority of people, thus it didn't sell well and got pirated to hell and back, oh well, don't release games most people can't play properly.

Crysis 2 is a good game, and more people can run it.

The proper approach to PC gaming is companies like Valve. Don't release products that most people can't properly enjoy.

I'd rather see PC gaming grow and improve, and releasing games that the majority of people can't fully enjoy isn't the way to go about it. That's a sure way to keep decreasing the amount of people that can play and make it a substandard and obnoxious platform for people, and we've seen the results of that in people purchasing less games and moving to consoles.